Analysis of the results of comparative internal limiting membrane staining with modern chromovitrectomy agents

Purpose. To assess the results of a comparative internal limiting membrane (ILM) staining with vital dye ≪Membrane blue dual≫ and suspension ≪Vitreocontrast≫ in patients with idiopathic macular holes using the computer colorimetry.Material and methods. The study included 15 patients with idiopathic macular holes ≥400 μm which underwent the three-port 25 Gauge vitrectomy, ILM peeling using the ≪inverted flap≫ technique followed by air tamponade. In all cases, the macular region was divided provisionally into 2 equal parts, ILM within the first part was stained with ≪Vitreocontrast≫ suspension, the second one with Membrane Blue Dual dye. After video recording of the intervention, a comparative assessment of agents staining ability was carried out using the computer colorimetry.Results. In a comparative colorimetric analysis, the average Euclidean distance CIELAB MembraneBlue® Dual between the stained ILM and the corresponding region of ILM-free retina was 15.97±7.4, for ≪Vitreocontrast≫ suspension 22.87±6.67. The average Euclidean distance CIELAB for ≪Vitreocontrast≫ suspension was significantly higher according to t-test than the average Euclidean distance for MembraneBlue® Dual dye at p=0.012. A revealed higher Euclidan distance for ILM, stained with ≪Vitreocontrast≫ suspension, suggests that when using this agent, the surgeon’s eye perception of ILM staining intensity will be objectively higher than with MembraneBlue® Dual solution.Conclusion. ≪Vitreocontrast≫ suspension provides a more vividly perceived staining of ILM for the surgeon`s eye than MembraneBlue® Dual, effectively and instantly settling both on the membrane itself and on possible epiretinal membranes on its surface. It does not loose adhesion throughout the entire surgical procedure. Thus, the suspension ≪Vitrerocontrast≫ can be recommended as an alternative to existing agents for ILM staining.